Com. v. Birckett, D.
3733 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 25, 2017Background
- Daymon Birckett was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and PIC for the June 15, 2008 killing of Ricardo Zayas Olmedos and sentenced to life imprisonment; direct appeals were denied.
- Birckett filed a pro se PCRA petition (later amended); the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notices and Birckett waived counsel after a Grazier hearing.
- The PCRA court dismissed his petition; Birckett appealed and filed a timely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement but attempted an untimely supplemental 1925(b) statement, which the court refused to consider.
- Timely issues raised challenged trial counsel’s effectiveness for: failing to object to admission of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement (Valerie Coates); failing to present self-defense/heat-of-passion evidence (including admitting Birckett’s statement); failing to request certain jury charges; deficient opening statement; failing to present alibi/character witnesses; and cumulative error.
- The PCRA court found most claims meritless or waived (procedural default and lack of development), concluding counsel’s performance was not ineffective under Strickland/Pierce standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Birckett) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Coates’s prior inconsistent statement | Counsel ineffective for not timely objecting to admission of Coates’s prior signed statement under Pa.R.E. 803.1(3) | Coates recanted at trial; her prior signed, adopted statement was properly admissible for impeachment and as substantive evidence; objection would be meritless | Court: No ineffectiveness — prior inconsistent signed statement was properly admitted; counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless objection |
| Failure to present self-defense/heat-of-passion evidence (use of defendant’s statement) | Counsel should have introduced Birckett’s statement claiming self-defense; could have supported manslaughter or imperfect self-defense | Trial court warned Birckett that if Commonwealth didn’t introduce his statement he could only admit it by testifying; Birckett knowingly waived testifying and presented no other supporting evidence | Court: No arguable merit; waiver of testimony was knowing and foreclosed use of the statement; no evidence supported self-defense/heat of passion |
| Failure to request jury instructions (heat of passion, voluntary manslaughter, imperfect self-defense) | Counsel ineffective for failing to request these jury charges | Birckett failed to identify evidence supporting such charges; claim not developed on appeal | Court: Waived or meritless for lack of supporting evidence; claim not developed in appellate brief and thus waived |
| Cumulative prejudice from multiple alleged errors | Cumulative effect warrants relief despite absence of individual prejudice | Individual claims were meritless or waived so cumulation cannot establish prejudice | Court: Denied — cumulative-error claim fails because no prejudice from individual claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (procedures for defendant waiving counsel)
- City of Philadelphia v. Lerner, 151 A.3d 1020 (Pa. 2016) (failure to file timely Rule 1925(b) statement results in waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (Rule 1925(b) compliance and waiver principles)
- Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (Strickland standard explained in Pennsylvania)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Commonwealth v. Lively, 610 A.2d 7 (Pa. 1992) (when prior inconsistent statements may be admitted as substantive evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Brewington, 740 A.2d 247 (Pa. Super. 1999) (trial court discretion to impeach own witness with prior inconsistent statement)
- Commonwealth v. Brady, 507 A.2d 66 (Pa. 1986) (admissibility of prior inconsistent statements of non-party witnesses)